Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys

Cox, Guy

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05369.x

Topics

To the Editor: In the recent article by Spilsbury and her colleagues on circumcision for phimosis, a key part of their argument hinged on probable rates of phimosis among boys.1 I take no stance for or against circumcision, but I have published on evolutionary aspects of the human foreskin and the origins of circumcision,2 for which I surveyed the literature on the occurrence of phimosis.

Correspondence:

1. Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Wisniewski ZS, Holman CDJ. Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 155-158. <eMJA full text>
2. Cox G. De virginibus puerisque — the function of the foreskin from an evolutionary perspective. Med Hyp 1995; 45: 617-621.
3. Shankar KR, Rickwood AM. The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int 1999; 84: 101-102.
4. Rickwood AM, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ 2000; 321: 792-793.
5. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968; 43: 200-220.
6. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433-1437.
7. Osmond TE. Is routine circumcision advisable? J Royal Army Medical Corps 1953; 99: 254.
8. Schoeberlein W. Bedeutung und Haeufigkeit von Phimose und Smegma. Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 1966; 7: 373-377.
9. Ohjimi T, Ohjimi H. Special surgical techniques for the relief of phimosis. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1981; 7: 326-330.
10. Boon ME, Susanti I, Tasche MJ, Kok LP. Human papillomavirus (HPV) associated male and female genital carcinomas in a Hindu population. The male as vector and victim. Cancer 1989; 64: 550-565.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.